Sociological Explanation of Educational Achievement Gap between Boys and Girls

We can define academic success as
the successful student is one who has acquired new knowledge and new skills in
a timely manner agreed by the educational institution, in accordance with the
current curriculum. Note that the notions of success and failure are related to
the school, its programs and its evaluation standards. This concept involves
the comparison between students within the same group or with respect to a
reference group. For example, comparing boys and girls in the same class, or
comparing girls to boys taken as the reference group. Note also that
school failure has far more been a subject of concern than the success itself.
Political power and society, indeed, tend to encourage scholars and researchers
to focus on the questions that appear as "social problems". But
"the social problem "is the massive failure of working-class
children.

Difference
in attitude between Boys and Girls

The amazing strength of
socioeconomic inequalities in access to education has occupied only the front
of sociological as well as the political stage; however, gender inequality in
educational achievement has the fundamental importance. The research found that
boys tend to dominate school space, especially they are more likely to ask
"spontaneously" (without even invited by the teacher) and tend to
boost trade, leading to observe a total duration of greater verbal interactions
with them (Cassen & Kingdon, 2007). This type of differentiation would
create "more positive" boys in mathematics and girls in reading and
writing. These expectations function as "Self-fulfilling prophecies,"
feeding the slightest confidence of girls and overvaluation of boys in
mathematics.

The issue of academic failure of
boys is a recent concern of our society. Historical data on school completion
show that the gap between boys and girls has been very wide. This issue is a
concern and the subject of many discussions. Some comments that express
the state of affairs:

· Both
the elementary and secondary boys repeat more than girls;

· No
matter what level of education, the graduation rate for boys is less than the
girls;

· Boys
are twice as likely as girls to be classified in the category of students at
risk;

· The
rate of access to higher education (college and university) is much higher
among girls (Reay, David & Ball, 2005).

Girls show greater consideration for
authority and are more likely to comply with the rules, including those of the
school. The boys are in conflict with the school. Most of the girls live a
rapprochement with school while most boys want and do everything to distance
himself. A boy sees difficulty in school as a burden. The order of
priority for the boy is the diploma, friends, grades and learning (Abouserie,
Moss & Barasi, 1992). The group of boys entering college to study had
very different behavior than their peers. In fact 45% of boys spent half hours
or less per day to their studies, while the proportion of girls for similar
behavior was only 24% (Abouserie, Moss & Barasi, 1992).

Although more women than men hold a
first degree, they are less active than men in mathematics, engineering and
architecture. In many countries, however, women obtain on average more often
than men with a university degree in arts and medicine. Equality between men
and women is almost reached in Commerce, Law and life sciences. In most
developed countries, advance taken by the girls in the secondary school, is
confirmed. The probability of obtaining a first graduation from high school is
higher for girls.

Gap
in Educational Achievements at Primary Level

In primary education, girls show
more educational achievements than boys. It is therefore understandable that
the rate of girls graduated exceeds with that of boys. Research in this
particular area has proved that the strongest variations due to social
background and age (Henderson & Mapp, 2002). However, sex plays a second
but important role (Nicole, 1998). The following table will depict the girls
lead over boys and the gap remains constant

Pupil Category

% gaining 5 or more A*-C GCSE
Grades inc English and Maths in 2008/9

% gaining 5 or more A*-C GCSE
Grades inc English and Maths in 2009/10

% gaining 5 or more A*-C GCSE
Grades inc English and maths in 2010/11

% gaining 5 or more A*-C GCSE
Grades inc. English and Maths in 2011/12

However, in mathematics, the gender
gap is very small and boys and girls are almost equal at the primary level. In
exercises of involving the manipulation direct and comprehensive grasp of
spatial figures, boys dominate clearly. Similarly exercises that require effective
control and disciplined reading, girls show significantly higher results and in
exercises that do not affect these two elements which results in balance. In
total, differences in performance between boys and girls are minimal (Pottorff
et al., 1996).

At primary level, although there is
a difference in achievement gap between boys and girls but this gap is not so
wide and boys and girls find themselves generally equal. Subsequently, the
differences are widening in favor of girls in regard to learning of reading and
writing the language of instruction, while we do not find similar results in
mathematics and science (Angel & Ferrer, 2010).

Gap
at Secondary Level

The gap between the percentage of
girls and boys who complete a high school diploma grows in favor of girls for
nearly last three decades. In 1995, 63.5% of girls have a degree to enter the
labor market(Diploma of secondary vocational training or college, as well as
BA) against 49.2% for boys. Graduation is a direct link with the school
results. Indeed, the diploma is issued on the basis of results of examinations
in compulsory subjects (Ogg, Zimdars & Heath, 2009).

In high school, the differences
already observed at the primary level, in language learning persists. In
1996-97, 44% of boys and 33% girls were in a position to delay school for
difference of 11%. In 1997-1998, 25.3% of boys and 17.3% of girls are behind in
school at the age of 12 years. At the secondary level, the gap between
boys and girls late at school at the age of 16, was 40% and 26.7% for boys and
girls respectively. Many of these students will take individualized paths and
the majority of them will never get graduated. So for a number of students, the
delay means the end of education.

Reasons
for inequality

The better performance of girls can
be elaborated with the help of two contradictory explanations. The first is to
use what is believed to be the common experience. Girls are less mobile or
agitated and more docile and show more adherences to the rules, so they would
fit better in the requirements of teachers. Girls "apply lot
"and" listen to everything. Thus, the best explanation of the success
of girls would refer to more common stereotypes of women (submission, docility,
passivity). When we say that girls do better their "student
business", it is not an euphemistic way of saying the same thing? In fact,
it is the ambiguity of this notion. How do you define "student job"?

Sadker (1999) shows a cohort of
students through two crucial moments (transition from kindergarten to primary
and primary to college) that girls are no more intelligent (as measured by the
tests), but they make better use of their intelligence to adapt collective
learning situations. It distinguishes among academic behaviors observed,
"active", "participation and passive instability. Only
active participation is correlated with good achievement. This "active
participation", results in a set of behaviors that reflect a selective
vigilance attention to relatively durable and autonomy in execution of the
task, interdependent qualities that characterize more girls than boys. Passive
participation made listening responsiveness and attention has no effect, either
positive or negative, on grades. It does not necessarily prevent learning, but
it can also be a sign, especially among students of popular origin, lack of
control of the school situation. As for the boys, they are often characterized
by mobility behavior and instability are signs of stalling attention and are
associated with poor school performance. Thus, the observations of Sadker
clearly refutes the hypothesis of a passivity of girls who succeed and puts
forward the idea of​​learning styles more effective than those of boys.

However, two objections can be made
to his thesis. Firstly, it returns the superiority of girls in a biological
origin: The adaptive superiority of girls is not in their docility, nor their
conformity or passivity, but more assured in their harmonious development
(Sadker, 1999). Thus, according to this thesis, each student has to be considered
in his or her individually and not in the dynamics of the class. Baudelot
& Establet (1992) proposed the idea of ​​a double culture: culture of
compliance among girls and culture among boys. This Culture disservice to boys
in the early years of schooling and when the system becomes more competitive.
In the first school years, girls draw bet on their ability to internalize
rules, express themselves in the framework of the school, to take account of
others in their personal strategies. Too much want to say, well the boys are
hard to get into the game at school. The first round is for women. But at the
moment everything changed direction.

Several researchers who have
researched in the subject of students’ educational achievements reported two
main factors that distinguish students a chance to academic success and risk of
failure, i.e. socio-economic origin and gender (Heath & Cheung, 2007;
Sullivan, Heath & Rothon, 2011). Social origin refers especially in
the middle class families: parents' occupation, parents’ schooling, maternal
employment, number of children in family etc. So generally, a student (boy or
girl) is more likely to get academic success if he or she comes from an
affluent background. As for gender, it was observed that girls perform better in
school than boys, regardless of social background, but nevertheless the gap
between boys and girls is greater in students of modest social background. We
discuss these factors under Marxism and Feminism theories.

Sociological
Explanation of Marx

In Marx’s view, the elite in any
society are those who own capital, the means of economic production. In
contrast to these capitalists, or bourgeoisie, are those who own no capital and
therefore have no significant social or political power: the exploited workers
or proletariat. One of the most powerful predictors of academic
success or failure is socioeconomic status. Simply put, the higher the
social-class level of a child’s home, the more likely he or she will succeed in
school. The mother’s level of education has a particularly strong correlation
with a child’s academic performance (Ensminger & Slusarcick, 1992). Of
course, it is not parental income or level of education per se that is
responsible for a child’s success in school. Sociologists point instead to such
factors as the cultural capital that affluent parents transmit to their
children. Students from the upper classes not only learn reading skills and
numbers during their preschool years, they also read appropriate books, visit
museums, attend symphonic concerts, and in other ways acquire through their
family socialization all the experiences, values and personality traits that
school require for academic excellence (Nooriafshar, 2001). One study found
that student’s work habits and citizenship figure strongly in the way teachers
award grades (Xu, 2002).

Disadvantaged homes, on the other
hand, can be identified by several markers: minority racial or ethnic identity,
low income, single-parent head of household, and non-English speaking
background. How do these social characteristics stand between a child and
school success?

Having a single- parent head
of household is an especially strong predictor of dropping out of school
(Fitzpatrick & Yoels, 1992). Students from such homes earn lower grades and
test scores, partly because single parents are likely to be minority members
and to have low levels of education. Also, single parents (and stepparents)
tend to give their children less encouragement and help with schoolwork. The
rest of the explanation lies less in such family’s economic circumstances than
in the student’s own misbehavior, including absenteeism, lateness, and not
doing homework (Catsambis, 2001). The research does not explain such
misbehaviors, but anger, frustration, and inadequate parental supervision are
cited as possibilities. While students from single parent’s homes certainly can
do well in school, this background factor is generally viewed as a
disadvantaged.

Researchers have identified another
disadvantage students can bring with them to school: large family size.
Generally speaking, family size correlates negatively with academic success-
the larger the family, the lower achievement tends to be– though race, the
mother’s age, the presence of other adults in the household, and other factors
complicate this picture. The difference may result from children in small
families receiving more attention and intellectual stimulation from their
parents (Dodd & Konzal, 2000).

The personal constellations within
the childhood home also make a difference. For example, the fewer siblings, the
greater are one’s chances for upward mobility, partly because of the greater
attention and financial support children receive in small families. Similarly,
the first-born son, the youngest son in a small family, and only children have
better opportunities than other children to move up the social ladder (Crozier,
Reay & Clayton, 2009). Moreover, because parents often see sons as better
long-term financial investments, several brothers are more serious obstacles to
an individual’s mobility chances than are sisters (Powel & Steelman, 1989).

Christenson (1995) modulates these
observations by taking into account the family: the rumpus is more often the
result of boys, regardless of their family environment; however, active participation
in the classroom depends less on the sex than the social class: white-collar
families typically serve as models through their own educational
accomplishments. Middleclass parents provide intellectual and academic
stimulation: speaking and reading to children, asking them questions about a
story, and so on. Middleclass parents are more likely to show interest in their
children’s studies, monitor and challenge the instructors and the school,
attends parent-teacher conferences, and use outside experts, if necessary. Such
parents serve as sophisticated, confident, and effective advocates and guides
throughout their children’s education. Parental expectations are positively
correlated to student’s achievement and college attendance. Clearly, some homes
offer advantages but others do not (Kelly-Laine, 1998). Fathers, in middle
class families, coming home from occupations in which they exert control over
the work of others convey a sense of self-direction to their children. Sons
born to older fathers have an advantage because such fathers tend to have
higher educational, employment, and economic statuses, and weaker competing
role demands. Mothers, usually serve as models for their daughters regarding
work behavior (Tickamyer and Blee, 1990).

Students from lower or working class
homes and minority groups tend not to perform as well in schools as
socioeconomically advantaged students. Bowles & Gintis (1976) use the
Marxist perspective to explain that schools serve to reproduce the social class
system of the haves and have-nots. According to their correspondence,
principal, the organization of the school mirrors that of the workplace.
Working class students are placed in tracks that teach them docility,
compliance, and conformity to authority, along with manual work skills. In
contrast, students from the homes of the capitalized elite end up in tracks
that foster independence and leadership. Other researchers, however, contend
that this principle exaggerated the degree to which the upper classes control
the structure and function of schools (Macleod, 1987) and that it reduce
students and teachers to passive role players in the capitalist system (Mehan,
1992).

Whether or not the higher failure
rate of the working class is the result of a capitalist stratagem, the argument
remains that the school experience tends to legitimate social class in
equalities. Not realizing that the system works against them, those from
disadvantaged background typically learn one overriding lesson in school: they
are not as able or competent as students from the middle class. For these
students, schools are a source of discouragement rather than social mobility.

Explanation
from Feminist Perspective

In Western societies, it is feminism
which imposed a consideration of the variable "sex", as well as the
variable "class" to highlight the gendered nature - in equal class -
of failure and academic success. Feminism and the dominant values ​​of our
society could have an impact on the development of identity among young
students.

Nicole (1989) advances an idea to
explain the lack of equality under the introduction of co-education colleges
and high school. According to Nicole there was no public debate questioning the
purposes of this evolution. The idea of same sex schools were rejected by the
Feminists in the beginning of the century but it was adopted as a solution to a
shortage of local teachers. Nevertheless, the research has shown that in
classes for girls, teachers sometimes make sexist allusions against women tend
to simplify or content (especially in science) as if they were available to
them. And in the boys' classes, there is sometimes encouragement from a male
teacher, certain aggressiveness.

Feminist activists supported the
idea of co-education schools because it provides diversity and equality to both
the genders. Same sex schools are often more selective (Private pay) than mixed
schools and the success of girls in such schools can then be attributed to a
higher social background and school curriculum. Nevertheless, it has been found
that when the social origin and course of such schools are controlled, there is
no longer a significant effect of diversity on performance of girls.

According to Block (1983) the
preference for mixed schools is largely predominant, including among students.
It has been observed that a greater critical distance and greater
self-confidence has been shown by the girls in mixed schools. These last show
less inclined to overvalue scientific studies and especially less fear of
competition with boys in these areas that girls have never faced boys in
school. Unlike those in effect past, they have found that boys were not always
best in mathematics or they could have other interests than football and video
games. Girls are more critical and ironic towards dominant behavior of boys.

Conclusion

Review of literature shows that
differences found in attitudes, perceptions and performance of girls and boys
in schools are minor, once considered their main characteristics (including
their socio-economic class and cultural origin). Everything changes, at times
compelling guidance to school, because it takes bluff, overestimate its own
merits and display appropriate claims. However, the research involves a
simplistic model again oppositions between competition (Male) and consistency
(= docility of Female). On the other hand, this explanation is cheap -
sociologists paradoxically – showing differences between classes. Girls, whose
issues compared to the peer group expressed much less by the need to assert
themselves and perhaps by that to acceptance (by the teacher and the peer
group, where achievement may be a factor of popularity), can concentrate better
on educational content and learning.

The strategy of some boys at school
is to adopt a primary and dominance behavior in the classroom. This situation
not only occurs in large classes but it is also modulated by the social
position of students. Some boys, who are in high social position, give
importance to school issues, especially when, it appears in the form of public
discussion, in addition to mathematics. For others, especially those in low
social position, it is not sure that the school is also important issue. The
school is easily imagined as an intellectual workplace, "false" labor
compared to "real" job, the one is made with hands, that which affirm
the strength and "manliness". Try assert themselves in this
environment, it is losing its values ​​and take big risks because, in this
area, the superiority is not guaranteed (Francis & Hey, 2009). Presumably
affirmation is more resisted in the school culture where gossip or dropping of
attention is the remarks of discipline, these remarks are boys (in a low
position on the academic or social). In this context, recreation is a much more
important issue than the class to ensure its dominance.

For girls, on the contrary,
education is a key issue; it is related to a recent conquest and a possibility
of paid work, a work in imitation of their mothers to daughters of the middle
classes or favored unskilled work less than their mothers, for those whose
mothers are working. So solidarity is often an issue for them as it is not the
first to assert themselves against peers, but to learn to ensure a future. The
research on girls related to lower social classes, shows that these students do
better in larger classes than in smaller class sizes (Heath & Sullivan,
2009). For them this is due to that can take the lesson in a position of
anonymity, having little to make their private thinking public. These students
show less learning difficulties and learning in a state of greater peace - A
situation that would be more conducive to learning. Similarly, one might assume
that girls are under less stress but also less concerned to appear and assert
their power by publicly expressing their thoughts and are more focused on
learning tasks and learn in a situation of greater peace and greater
efficiency.

But this success in the short term
may also impact less longer term, if one is from the point of view of the
respective square occupied by boys and girls. Because they do not learn to be
assertive, to speak publicly or to consider their personal thoughts important.
In addition, with respect to knowledge, boys and girls occupy different places,
which may be supposed to prefigure those two genders in the adult world.
Because, in the observed sequence, we can see some girls (good or average
students) are attendants to recall knowledge already acquired.

Some boys, however - not all,
especially the students of high school and middle class position rather favored
- are allowed or encouraged to produce new knowledge and to articulate in
speech and public writing. Nevertheless, we can consider that this division of
labor is what is largely assigned to men and women in today's society:
transmit, teach tasks supposedly "feminine" produce knowledge and
"masculine" new tasks. These observations illustrate the daily school
life, a division of labor between the sexes in relation to knowledge.